Received: 19 February 2021 DOI: 10.1111/hic3.12662 ARTICLE - Accepted: 27 April 2021 The Third Crusade in historiographical perspective Stephen J. Spencer Department of History, King's College London, Strand, London, UK Abstract The Third Crusade (1187–1192) is renowned as a conflict Correspondence Stephen J. Spencer, Department of History, King's College London, Strand Campus, Strand, London, WC2R 2LS, UK. Email: stephen.spencer@kcl.ac.uk between King Richard I of England and the Muslim Sultan Saladin—a reductionist perspective that reflects an enduring fascination with these protagonists both inside and outside academia. In fact, the expedition was significantly more Funding information Leverhulme Trust, Grant/Award Number: ECF‐2019‐465 diverse, with the German emperor, Frederick Barbarossa, and the king of France, Philip Augustus, leading major contingents to the East, while a number of smaller‐scale expeditions also constituted part of the overall Third Crusade. This article surveys key developments in the enterprise's historiography—focusing primarily on the crusading careers of Richard, Frederick and Philip—and introduces the main sources. It suggests that hindsight has played a surprisingly prominent role in directing scholarly interpretations and that historiography has gradually diversified during the 20th and 21st centuries, moving away from the traditional Richard versus Saladin narrative to explore understudied individuals, events and themes. 1 | INTRODUCTION On July 4, 1187, the army of the Latin kingdom of Jerusalem was defeated at the Horns of Hattin by Saladin, sultan of Egypt, Damascus and Aleppo. The king of Jerusalem, Guy of Lusignan, and a prized relic of the True Cross were captured, and on October 2, Jerusalem itself capitulated to the Muslim sultan (Barber, 2012, pp. 289–323; This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. © 2021 The Authors. History Compass published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd. History Compass. 2021;19:e12662. https://doi.org/10.1111/hic3.12662 wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/hic3 1 of 14 2 of 14 - SPENCER Bronstein, 2019; Ehrlich, 2007; France, 2015; Lyons & Jackson, 1982, pp. 255–277; Herde, 1966; Kedar, 1992). In response to Hattin (but seemingly unaware of Jerusalem's plight), on October 29, 1187, Pope Gregory VIII announced the expedition now known as the Third Crusade—a complex military campaign led by three of Western Europe's premier rulers. While the German emperor, Frederick Barbarossa, took the land route but mysteriously drowned in the River Saleph (Göksu) on June 10, 1190, Kings Philip II of France and Richard I of England (‘the Lionheart’) travelled by sea; the former departed following Acre's capture in July 1191, whereas the latter left the Holy Land on October 9, 1192, having agreed a 3‐year truce (the Treaty of Jaffa) with Saladin on September 2. Thus, the expedition failed to recover the relic of the True Cross and to liberate Jerusalem (Asbridge, 2010, pp. 367–516; Mayer, 1988, pp. 137–149; Tyerman, 2006, pp. 366–474). Alongside these major crusading contingents, a number of smaller‐scale voyages fall under the Third Crusade's umbrella, including 50 or 60 vessels despatched by William II of Sicily in 1188; north‐western European ships co‐opted by King Sancho I of Portugal to attack Silves in 1189; and a Dano‐Norwegian expedition that arrived in the Holy Land after the Treaty of Jaffa was finalised. The breadth of the Third Crusade goes some way towards explaining the lack of an authoritative, scholarly account of the expedition, with the most detailed treatments found in biographical studies of the main protagonists and general histories of the crusades. Indeed, the crusade's multifarious character, coupled with constraints on length, has necessitated restricting the scope of this historiographical survey in three ways. It focuses primarily on the armies of Richard, Philip and Frederick, in order to bring together scholarship in English, French and German; and, chronologically, it synthesises major contributions in the 20th and 21st centuries, even though an analysis of earlier works—such as Thomas Fuller's The Historie of the Holy Warre—would undoubtedly be fruitful (Fuller, 1639). Perhaps more controversially, the focus here is squarely on the crusader armies, without dealing extensively with the vast corpus of literature pertaining to Saladin, which warrants its own review essay. Key features of this latter corpus, which interested readers can access through numerous biographies, include the extent and sincerity of Saladin's commitment to jihad against the Franks before and during the Third Crusade (with Carole Hillenbrand positing that his dedication faltered after capturing Jerusalem); whether he entered into an anti‐crusader alliance with Byzantium; why he failed to crush the Latins outside Acre in 1189–1191; his difficulties in maintaining a field army; and the significance of the crusade in the context of his wider career (Brand, 1962; Eddé, 2011, pp. 238–270; Ehrenkreutz, 1972, pp. 195–223; Gibb, 1952, 1973; Hillenbrand, 1999, p. 195; Lyons & Jackson, 1982, pp. 295– 363; Möhring, 1980, 1984, 2008, pp. 74–90; Neocleous, 2010, 2013; Phillips, 2019, pp. 220–300). Two overarching points recur throughout the following survey: first, that hindsight has proved a formidable, but not insurmountable, barrier to historical analysis of the Third Crusade; and, second, that over the course of the 20th and 21st centuries, scholars have increasingly looked beyond the traditional Richard versus Saladin narrative, causing the scope of historiographical enquiry to diversify significantly. 2 | RICHARD VERSUS SALADIN As alluded to above, the Third Crusade has often been presented as a conflict between Saladin and Richard the Lionheart, both in public‐facing and academic works (Nicolle, 2006; Reston Jr, 2001). This not only reflects an enduring western fascination with two adversaries who were mythologised even during the Middle Ages, but also the survival of detailed narratives written by members of Richard's and Saladin's armies, as well as the emergence of the modern biography as the principal medium for examining the expedition (Broughton, 1966; Chism, 2019; Eddé, 2011, pp. 465–502; Jubb, 2000; Phillips, 2019, pp. 315–328). Thus, scholars are well served by a proliferation of biographies of Richard I in English, German and French, as well as four important collections of essays (Bennewitz & van Eickels, 2018; Berg, 2007; Brundage, 1974; Fischer, 2006; Flori, 2006; Gillingham, 1989, 1994, 1999; Kessler, 1995; Minois, 2017; Nelson, 1992; Schubert, 2017; Turner & Heiser, 2000). Interpretations of Richard's crusading career have varied widely, ranging from John Gillingham's largely positive appraisal in two seminal biographies to Michael Markowski's damning verdict that ‘as a crusade leader, Richard was a dismal failure’ SPENCER - 3 of 14 (Gillingham, 1989, pp. 125–216; 1999, pp. 123–221; Markowski, 1997, p. 363). Within these overarching assessments, several contested points have emerged. Richard's diversion to Cyprus in 1191 has been seen as either a calculated move or purely accidental, while, perhaps unsurprisingly, his decision to execute between 2600 and 3000 Muslim prisoners outside Acre on August 20, 1191, remains highly controversial (Bradbury, 1998, p. 86; Brundage, 1974, pp. 100–101; Gillingham, 1999, pp. 145–154; Kessler, 1995, pp. 127–150; Richard, 1999, pp. 223–224). There is an ongoing debate as to whether this was an exceptionally violent act by 12th‐century standards; and whereas older studies ascribed it to Richard's short temper—an interpretation which overlooks the complex evidence surrounding his anger—more recent explanations have centred on his eagerness to move the army forward without leaving so many prisoners in his rear, his desire to strike a psychological blow to Saladin and the mutual distrust that existed between both parties (Asbridge, 2010, pp. 452–455; Flori, 2006, pp. 356–361; France, 2011, p. 22; Friedman, 2002, pp. 90–92; Gillingham, 1989, pp. 182–184; 1999, pp. 167–171; Grousset, 1936, p. 61; Lyons & Jackson, 1982, p. 333; Spencer, 2017). The significance of the battle of Arsuf (September 7, 1191), regarded by some as a crushing blow to Saladin and a demonstration of Richard's ‘superb generalship’, has often been downplayed since R. C. Smail characterised it as ‘a striking and temporary tactical success, but nothing more’ (Gillingham, 1989, p. 191; Smail, 1995, p. 165). The battle appears to have evolved organically during a fighting march from Acre to Jaffa, when two members of the Christian rearguard (the marshal of the Hospitallers and Baldwin of Carew) broke ranks to charge the harassing Muslims, but did King Richard seek to engineer a decisive encounter with Saladin? Rejecting the highly stylised version of events in Ambroise's Estoire de la guerre sainte (discussed below), in which the king proactively pursued battle, Thomas Asbridge has posited that, though Richard was perhaps prepared for the eventuality of a major confrontation, his principal objective was to reach the orchards of Arsuf intact and then to proceed to Jaffa, from which Ascalon and Jerusalem could be threatened (Asbridge, 2010, pp. 468–469, 474–475). In contrast, Benjamin Kedar, who prioritised Ambroise's account, has seen Richard's decision to continue marching south, despite the rearguard having been engaged, as a deliberate ploy to lure Saladin's forces to a suitable battle‐site for delivering a devastating cavalry charge (Kedar, 2015). Another view is that both sides had good reasons to instigate a definitive engagement and recognised that it would unfold in the Forest of Arsuf; and it is also possible that Richard had stationed trusted subordinates along the marching column to maintain discipline, in which case the marshal and Baldwin may have acted in accordance with the king's wishes (Bennett, 2017; Ehrlich, 2014). Famously, the crusaders twice advanced to Beit Nuba, just 12 miles from Jerusalem, but on both occasions (in January and July 1192) were ordered to withdraw. Should Richard have besieged Jerusalem? His defenders insist that he made the correct strategic decision, formed in consultation with local military experts, and that by July 1192 negotiation was the only realistic method of acquiring Jerusalem (Gillingham, 1999, pp. 190–191, 209). However, historians have generally become less sympathetic to the king's predicament. In refusing to invest the Holy City, it is argued, the Lionheart contravened the expectations of the army and the papacy; he squandered a key opportunity to capture Jerusalem following Arsuf, electing instead to refortify Jaffa; he may have ‘lost his nerve’ or, if hoping to unhinge Saladin, simply miscalculated; and his indecision and failure to grasp the distinctive nature of crusading warfare, especially the allure of Jerusalem to his followers, manifested a mismanagement of the two advances (Asbridge, 2010, pp. 490–491, 508–509; Flori, 2006, pp. 139–140; Markowski, 1997, p. 361; Möhring, 2008, p. 85; 2018, p. 86; Tyerman, 2006, pp. 464–465). All the aforementioned debates are relevant, in one way or another, to the broader question of whether the Third Crusade should be considered a triumph or failure. Naturally, the Treaty of Jaffa has been central to scholarly assessments; indeed, the fact that the expedition was resolved through a negotiated truce, rather than a military coup, has caused historians to arrive at startlingly different conclusions. Saladin retained possession of Jerusalem— as well as the True Cross, which, surprisingly, was not a major bone of contention in negotiations—and Ascalon, the key to Egypt, was dismantled. Yet the crusaders secured Jerusalemite coastal territory from Jaffa to Tyre, along with pilgrim access to holy shrines, while Saladin's reputation was damaged after multiple defeats in combat. Accordingly, Saladin has been condemned for his ‘catastrophic failure to eliminate the Christian kingdom from 4 of 14 - SPENCER Palestine’ and lauded for leaving the Muslims in a stronger position than the Franks and for only making concessions which did not diminish his control of Jerusalem (Eddé, 2011, p. 269; Ehrenkreutz, 1972, p. 223; Möhring, 2018, p. 86). Similarly, Richard has received credit for creating a springboard from which a more propitious campaign could be launched and criticism for weakening his negotiating position by reopening diplomatic channels only after the second retreat and by publicising his need to return home due to his brother John's meddling (Appleby, 1965, pp. 56–106; Möhring, 2008, p. 86; Norgate, 1924, p. 262). However, the Lionheart's actions during the expedition suggest that he matched, perhaps even surpassed, Saladin in the art of diplomacy (Asbridge, 2013). Some simply consider the treaty a stalemate (Lyons & Jackson, 1982, p. 360). Matters become even more complicated when the longer‐term implications of the truce and expedition are considered. The treaty has been described as an ‘almost incredible success’—but later downgraded to a ‘modest’ achievement—because it ensured the survival of the Latin East for another century (Mayer, 1982, p. 739; 1988, p. 149). Following Saladin's death in March 1193, the agreement provided the basis for a period of relative peace, and it has been identified as marking a ‘historic break’ in Frankish–Muslim treaties through the unprecedented establishment of whole towns (Lydda and Ramla), not just rural areas, as condominia (Köhler, 2013, pp. 265, 267; Nierman, 1975). More broadly, Cyprus acquired a long‐term strategic significance under Lusignan rule (from 1192); Acre afforded the kingdom of Jerusalem a vibrant commercial lifeline; and the Third Crusade shaped the direction of future crusading activity by elucidating the potential for targeting Egypt and journeying by sea (Edbury, 1991; Tyerman, 2006, p. 473). 3 | DIVERSIFICATION I would argue that alongside the enduring Richard and Saladin binary, the 20th and 21st centuries have witnessed a gradual diversification of scholarship pertaining to the Third Crusade in terms of both the protagonists and topics examined. Frederick Barbarossa's death in the River Saleph has cast a shadow over medieval and modern treatments of his 1189–1190 expedition. All the narrative accounts were written with foreknowledge of his demise, and the benefit of hindsight has led some scholars to argue that the emperor always intended to die in the East, with the crusade being the grand finale he had worked towards throughout his life (Johnson, 1969, p. 90; Munz, 1969, pp. 371–372). Unsurprisingly, the greatest advancements have been made in German scholarship. Ekkehard Eickhoff's landmark monograph on Frederick's crusade appeared in 1977, offering a detailed reconstruction of the course of the expedition based on an intimate knowledge of the topography (Eickhoff, 1977). A lengthy 1992 article by Rudolf Hiestand represents a key juncture in modern scholarship, revising previous assumptions and setting the agenda for future research. Hiestand convincingly refuted the interrelated assumptions that the crusade was the culmination of a long‐term policy and that the emperor himself saw the expedition as his final act. A letter issued in Frederick's name in May 1189 expressly signalled his intention to return; the chancellery saw no reason to include contingency clauses in the event of his non‐return; and, if the crusade was truly a longstanding objective, one would expect at least some preparations to have begun pre‐1187 (Hiestand, 1992, pp. 52–55). Significantly, Hiestand insisted that the expedition cannot be divorced from the political context of the empire in the 1180s. Reversing the traditional view that a period of peace followed Henry the Lion's exile in 1180, which provided the ideal conditions for Frederick to journey east, he contended that the emperor could establish peace only because he had resolved to go crusading: ‘It was the crusade that gave him the opportunity to come to peace with the Church and to compel the princes and aristocracy to peace, and not an existing peace in the years before 1187 that created the opportunity for the crusade’ (Hiestand, 1992, p. 57). Valuable light was also shed on Frederick's preparations for departure. His experiences on the Second Crusade, personal relationships with individuals in the Latin East and decades of rule all enabled Frederick to tackle the logistical and organisational challenge of crusading ‘with rationality and professionalism’ (Hiestand, 1992, pp. 65–66). This, in conjunction with his far‐sighted planning and the army's internal organisation (all were subjected to ‘the overall extraordinary authority of Barbarossa’), speaks against any suggestion that the emperor succumbed to a coup de théâtre—a phrase Jonathan Riley‐Smith had used SPENCER - 5 of 14 to describe the circumstances of his death (Hiestand, 1992, pp. 66, 71, 80, 90–91; Riley‐Smith, 1987, p. 112). Though Hiestand insisted that by April 1189, Frederick had done all that was possible and necessary to prosecute a successful campaign, a more critical tone was adopted when discussing the expedition's consequences: the crusade cemented Frederick's reputation as the Christian emperor par excellence, but since the German army suffered heavy losses—including the emperor and his younger son, Frederick of Swabia—it weakened the Staufen in terms of both personnel and resources (Hiestand, 1992, pp. 91, 101). Several studies have built upon Hiestand's conclusions. For example, the problematic nature of Frederick's death for Latin Christian authors—the fact that he did not fall fighting Muslims in the Holy Land, but rather drowned in Christian Cilicia, without having made confession, received the sacraments or drawn up a will—has been subjected to detailed investigations by Manuel Kamenzin and Leila Bargmann, with the latter revealing how the emperor's passing did not fit the idealised paradigm of a ‘good death’ (Bargmann, 2010; Hiestand, 1992, pp. 105– 107; Kamenzin, 2020, pp. 355–379). Alan Murray has expanded our knowledge of the logistical dilemmas of Frederick's land‐based crusade—a key theme of Hiestand's study—by exploring how funds were transported and utilised, especially in light of the remarkable discovery in the 1980s of the so‐called ‘Barbarossa Hoard’, comprising coins, silver ingots and jewellery deposited by German crusaders (Murray, 2007; see also Hiestand, 1991; Stumpf, 1991). A recent contribution from Daniel Franke has re‐examined the political climate in which Frederick committed himself to the expedition, contending that Hiestand underplayed the extent of conflicts within the empire, which ‘were not extinguished simply because the emperor took the cross’, and called for even greater recognition of the political aspects of crusading (Franke, 2016, p. 131). In addition, scholars are increasingly looking beyond the emperor's death, as Hiestand recommended, to appreciate his achievement and contribution to the collective Third Crusade. For Christopher Tyerman, Frederick's ability to lead his army, depleted but still vast, to Cilicia by May 30, 1190, ‘compared with the most remarkable achievements of the whole Third Crusade’ (Tyerman, 2006, p. 427). Indeed, an important study by Graham Loud has offered several correctives, highlighting that the capture of Iconium was a major military accomplishment and the dissolution of the German contingent stemmed not from the emperor's death but from the epidemic which ravaged the army at Antioch (Loud, 2010, pp. 27–29). The German crusade also served as a distraction to Saladin, preventing him from focusing his energies and manpower on decisively confronting the crusaders outside Acre in summer 1190 (Asbridge, 2010, pp. 422–423). Among the numerous biographies of Frederick (e.g., Laudage, 2009; Opll, 2009), two published in the last decade—by Knut Görich and John Freed—deserve attention. Both include succinct, narrative‐driven chapters on the preparations for, and events of, the crusade, yet offer novel perspectives by situating the expedition within broader reinterpretations of Frederick's reign. Görich stressed the importance of aristocratic culture and values, especially the concept of honour, which, he argued, was frequently the guiding principle behind Frederick's actions. Of course, a concern for the maintenance of reputation and the honor imperii (‘honour of the empire’) has implications for our understanding of the German crusade. It perhaps explains why Görich concluded that the crusade project was ever‐present throughout Frederick's life—not as an incessantly pursued objective, but as a challenge that recurred with varying degrees of urgency and reflected a desire to both achieve salvation and fulfil his duties as the premier Christian ruler (Görich, 2011, pp. 176–191, 548, 659; see also Görich, 2001, 2006). In Freed's revisionist biography of 2016, the Third Crusade featured primarily as an event which glossed over the emperor's failings. The fourth Italian campaign of 1167, during which an epidemic decimated the imperial forces, was identified as the pivotal moment of his reign, after which he effectively operated as one of the German princes. Death on the Third Crusade ‘redeemed Frederick's reputation, but he went because the pope had summoned the kings and knights of Europe and not because it was the emperor's special responsibility to defend Christendom’ (Freed, 2016, p. 517). If Frederick had died at home or outside Rome in 1167, he would be remembered as a ruler who persecuted the Church, suffered defeats in Italy and who witnessed the deterioration of his authority in Germany (Freed, 2016, pp. xxii, 348). Less has been written about the crusading career of King Philip Augustus of France, which no doubt reflects its brevity and unspectacular conclusion. Again, hindsight has proved an obstacle to historical analysis. The 6 of 14 - SPENCER Anglo‐Norman chroniclers (who wrote the more detailed accounts) vilified the French monarch for failing to persevere with the journey, and such antagonism has occasionally seeped into modern interpretations, causing his contribution to be undervalued. However, a number of historians have sought to rehabilitate Philip's crusading reputation. A glowing appraisal is presented in the second instalment of Alexander Cartellieri's four‐volume biography, which introduced several lines of argument that would be taken up and expanded upon in later studies: Philip was a willing crusader, but only insofar as it served his main priority of increasing French power; Richard humiliated Philip at every opportunity, and this ongoing conflict hamstrung the expedition; at Acre, Philip performed an essential function as overall commander‐in‐chief and, with the city on the brink of collapse, postponed the final assault out of respect for Richard. A cornerstone of Cartellieri's analysis was the juxtaposition of the calculated, calm Philip and the boorish, hot‐headed Richard. Thus, he insisted the French king did not deserve rebuke for abandoning the enterprise, since his departure was a praiseworthy example of monarchical pride and the consequence, not the cause, of untenable conditions, with Richard identified as the chief sower of discord (Cartellieri, 1906, pp. 258–262). Sidney Painter and James Brundage adopted similarly sympathetic approaches to Philip's departure, emphasising the significance of political circumstances and opportunities in the West, as well as his illness and fractured relationship with Richard (Brundage, 1974, pp. 129–131; Painter, 1969, pp. 69–70). Regrettably, the most enthusiastic attempt to salvage Philip's reputation—Jim Bradbury's 1998 biography—often reads as an apologia, one underpinned by a rather narrow view of the expedition's outcomes and, in the same vein as Cartellieri's study, frequent comparison with Richard I (almost always in the French king's favour). For Bradbury, the main achievement of the Third Crusade was the capture of Acre, and the credit afforded to Philip should be augmented accordingly: ‘he made an important contribution to this crusade, one might indeed argue the most important contribution’ (Bradbury, 1998, p. 72). However, it is somewhat controversial to argue that Richard's successes after July 1191 ‘simply followed from this’ and were ‘inevitable’ (Bradbury, 1998, pp. 97, 98). Others have been more balanced in their evaluations. In Jean Flori's eyes, Philip's departure was indicative of sage political realism but still ‘less than glorious’ (Flori, 2007, p. 54; see also Richard, 1982; Baldwin, 1986, pp. 77–80). James Naus likewise concluded that this act was in reaction to the evolving political landscape, with the demise of several French barons during the crusade creating opportunities to consolidate his rule in France. Adding texture to the debate, Naus plausibly suggested that the Anglo‐Norman chroniclers lambasted Philip to deflect criticism from Richard for failing to capture Jerusalem (whereas his withdrawal attracted little derision within France), and that he succeeded in maintaining the associations between crusading and Capetian kingship (Naus, 2016, pp. 112–40). In addition to acknowledging French and German contributions to the Third Crusade, scholarship has diversified by moving away from the expedition's main protagonists to examine underexplored individuals, groups, events and themes. For example, the multifaceted roles performed by the Genoese—as crusaders, merchants, suppliers, bankers and negotiators—and the contributions of women (specifically, their potential involvement in combat, about which the sources are divided) have been examined in focused studies (Mack, 2011; Nicholson, 1997b; Phillips, 2015). The siege of Acre (August 1189–July 1191), especially the period before the arrival of the kings in April and June 1191, has come into sharper historiographical focus. John Pryor has suggested that Saladin's inability to dislodge the Latin besiegers from their camps in September–October 1189 had a marked impact on the outcome of the siege, whereas Stephen Bennett—whose 2021 monograph sheds light on the factors which encouraged western nobles to participate in the expedition—has countered suggestions that Guy of Lusignan was an ineffectual general through a re‐examination of the battle of October 4, 1189 (Bennett, 2018, 2021; Pryor, 2015, p. 115). Other understudied protagonists—such as Guy's brother, Geoffrey, and Saladin's nephew, Taqi al‐Din—come to the fore in John Hosler's 2018 military history of the siege, which analyses the full range of land‐ and sea‐based engagements, and, owing to the work of Thomas Wagner and Piers Mitchell, we can now appreciate the impact of infectious diseases on the siege and wider expedition (Hosler, 2018c; Wagner & Mitchell, 2011; see also Hosler, 2018a, 2018b, 2020). Another area to have received renewed attention is the preaching of the Third Crusade. It has been suggested that the mobilisation for war ‘reinvented crusading’ through the careful organisation of preaching campaigns, such SPENCER - 7 of 14 as those of Archbishop Baldwin of Canterbury in Wales and Henry, cardinal bishop of Albano, in Germany and France; developments in crusade financing and taxation, such as the introduction of the Saladin Tithe in 1188; and greater precision in the definition of a crusader's status and privileges (Brundage, 1963; Cole, 1991, pp. 65–79; Edbury, 1996b; Hurlock, 2011, pp. 58–91; Tyerman, 1988, pp. 57–85; 1998, p. 27; 2006, pp. 375–399, at 375; 2015, pp. 114–123; Round, 1916). Audita tremendi, Gregory VIII's call to arms, contained several novel features. A specific enemy was named, Saladin; the sins of all Christians, including those in Europe, were deemed the root cause of the disaster; and a highly emotive tone was adopted to promote mass grief and repentance (Asbridge, 2010, p. 370; Cole, 1991, pp. 63–64; Tyerman, 2015, p. 52; Schein, 2005, pp. 170–177, 186). Three recent articles are particularly innovative. Applying a new methodological framework for the identification of medieval news texts, Helen Birkett has examined the transmission of news about the battle of Hattin, fall of Jerusalem and the launch of the Third Crusade in 1187–1188. An important finding concerns the delayed dissemination of reports regarding the fall of Jerusalem on October 2: Birkett revealed that, while the papal curia had received reports of the defeat at Hattin by mid‐October 1187, news of Jerusalem's loss did not penetrate the West until spring 1188, significantly later than previous scholars, most notably Cartellieri, had assumed (Birkett, 2018; Cartellieri, 1906, pp. 272–273). The cultural impact of the loss of the True Cross in Western Europe has been explored by Megan Cassidy‐Welch, who utilised modern trauma theory and an array of medieval sources to suggest that it constitutes an example of ‘collective trauma’. As such, Cassidy‐Welch's article complements the work of Penny Cole and Sylvia Schein on Latin Christian reactions to, and explanations for, the losses at Hattin and Jerusalem (Cassidy‐Welch, 2017; Cole, 1993; Schein, 2005, pp. 159–187). In an equally valuable study, Thomas Smith has argued convincingly that Audita tremendi not only underwent a papal programme of revision and refinement, with the encyclical issued on four occasions between October 29, 1187 and January 2, 1188, but also received further, unofficial modifications in localities. Moreover, once thought to have been the result of weeks of drafting, Smith contended that Audita tremendi was a hurried response to Hattin and was crafted with the principal goal of inspiring communal repentance— the call to arms representing little more than an addendum (Smith, 2018). 4 | THE SOURCES As Smith's reappraisal of Audita tremendi attests, our understanding of the source base for the Third Crusade has developed enormously. Though the charters, letters and lyrics pertaining to the enterprise have all received historiographical comment, my focus here is on the earliest narrative accounts which have been instrumental in directing scholarly views and reconstructions (Gillingham, 2000; Hiestand, 2007; Mayer, 1977; Murray, 2014; Paterson, 2018, pp. 47–75; Power, 2014; Rieger, 1998; Sayers, 1985). The Third Crusade is the first crusading expedition for which we possess detailed first‐hand testimonies from both Muslim and Latin Christian perspectives. Fortunately, two members of Saladin's entourage wrote lengthy accounts in Arabic. Though Baha al‐Din Ibn Shaddad was only in the sultan's service for five years (from 1188), he held two key positions as judge of the army (Qadi al‐‘askar) and governor of Jerusalem, whereas Imad al‐Din al‐Isfahani served Saladin for much longer, becoming his secretary in 1175. Both enjoyed close and frequent access to their master. Importantly, their works are related, with Ibn Shaddad seemingly using Imad al‐Din's al‐Fath al‐qussi fi'l‐fath al‐Qudsi (‘The Eloquent Exposition of the Conquest of Jerusalem’) to augment his own notes (Richards, 1980, p. 61). Neither author, of course, can be considered an impartial observer. They were Saladin's ‘spin doctors’: Imad al‐Din praised Saladin from almost every angle, presenting him as the champion of jihad in elaborate rhyming prose; and Ibn Shaddad's al‐ Nawadir al‐Sultaniyya wa'l‐Mahasin al‐Yusufiyya (‘The Sultan's Rare Deeds and Joseph‐like Merits’) was written with the didactic purpose of ‘urging people to bless his name and to remember his excellent qualities’ (Hillenbrand, 2019; Massé, 1972; Richards, 1993, 2002, p. 245; Richter‐Bernburg, 2014). These texts can be supplemented by the 13th‐ century works of Abu Shama and Ibn al‐Athir; the latter, a Zengid supporter from Mosul, is often characterised as hostile to the Ayyubids, yet, as Françoise Micheau has shown, his coverage of Saladin is relatively even‐handed. 8 of 14 - SPENCER Nonetheless, his work remains a valuable counterweight to the panegyrics composed by the sultan's advisors (Gibb, 1950; Le livre des deux jardins, 1898–1906; Michaeu, 2014, pp. 78–81; Richards, 2007). The earliest western account is probably the Estoire de la guerre sainte, written in Old French verse at some point between 1194 and Richard I's death in 1199. The author, Ambroise, was probably a cleric from Normandy, although some scholars favour a jongleur (entertainer), and his work is notable for its inherent bias towards King Richard, frequent claims of eyewitness observation as a method of authentication and its status as an early example of a vernacular verse history about the recent past (Ailes, 2004, 2008; Ailes & Barber, 2003; Bull, 2018, pp. 219– 255; Croizy‐Naquet, 1998, 2001, 2014a, 2014b; Damian‐Grint, 1999, pp. 76–79; Hanley, 2001). The relationship between the Estoire and a Latin account, the Itinerarium peregrinorum et gesta regis Ricardi, or IP2, has long been disputed (Edwards, 1933; Norgate, 1910; Paris, 1897, pp. lix–lxxvi; Stubbs, 1864; Vielliard, 2005). Most scholars now accept that the author of IP2—often identified as Richard de Templo, prior of Holy Trinity, Aldgate—utilised and translated large sections of Ambroise's work, which he augmented with material garnered from other sources and possibly also memories of his own crusade experiences (Nicholson, 1997a, pp. 12–14; Staunton, 2017, pp. 142–149; Spacey, 2019). One such source was the text now known as IP1, which, as Hans Eberhard Mayer demonstrated, accounts for the first book of IP2 (Mayer, 1962). Formerly attributed to a Templar (an attribution refuted by Hannes Möhring), Helen Nicholson has persuasively argued that IP1 was composed by an English clerk in the service of Baldwin of Canterbury, whose death at the siege of Acre in November 1190 concludes the work (Möhring, 1982; Nicholson, 2019). Two interrelated accounts of the Third Crusade were written by Roger, parson of Howden, who participated in the expedition before leaving Acre with Philip Augustus in July 1191. His Gesta regis Henrici secundi, previously believed to be the work of Benedict of Peterborough, was used and revised for his Chronica, finished in 1201 (Corner, 1983; Gillingham, 1982, 2006; Stenton, 1953; Stubbs, 1867, 1868–1871). Philip Augustus' biographers, Rigord and William the Breton, offer a useful counterpoint to the Anglo‐Norman accounts, as do the key sources for Frederick Barbarossa's crusade, which were translated and reassessed by Graham Loud in 2010 (Carpentier et al., 2006; Castellani, 2019; Croizy‐Naquet, 2019; Delaborde, 1885; Loud, 2010). Chief among these is the Historia de expeditione Friderici imperatoris, which Loud demonstrated to be a composite work of c.1200 based largely upon eyewitness testimony, and the textually related Historia peregrinorum (Chroust, 1928; Loud, 2010, pp. 1–8). Loud's study typifies an ongoing scholarly desire to look outside the traditional canon of sources for the Third Crusade. To give just a sample of this material: we now possess modern editions and/or translations, with accompanying commentaries, of two tracts by Peter of Blois (Huygens, 2002; Markowski, 1992; Southern, 1985), Ralph Niger's De re militari et triplici via peregrinationis Iersolimitane (Cotts, 2017, 2018; Schmugge, 1977), the Libellus de expugnatione terrae sanctae per Saladinum (Brewer & Kane, 2019), a verse account of the fall of Acre attributed to ‘Haymarus Monachus’ (Falk & Placanica, 2006), Gerald of Wales' De principis instructione (Bartlett, 2018), Arnold of Lübeck's chronicle (Loud, 2019) and the De itinere navali (Cushing, 2013; David, 1939), in addition to detailed studies of the Latin Continuation of William of Tyre (Kane, 2018; Salloch, 1934), Chronique d’Ernoul et de Bernard le Trésorier and Old French Continuations of William of Tyre (Croizy‐ Naquet, 2001, 2011; Edbury, 1996a, 1997, 2010, 2018, 2019; Gaggero, 2018, 2019; Kane, 2016; Pryor, 1992), Historia de profectione Danorum in Hierosolymam (Jensen, 2018; Skovgaard‐Petersen, 2001) and the key Anglo‐ Norman chronicles (Staunton, 2017). 5 | CONCLUSION: A PERSONAL PERSPECTIVE Hindsight has had a marked impact on scholarship pertaining to the Third Crusade, with foreknowledge of Philip's return, Frederick's death, Richard's refusal to besiege Jerusalem and the fact that the expedition ended with a truce all helping to shape historical opinion and the questions historians have asked. This, in conjunction with the partisan nature of the medieval narrative sources and the dominance of modern biographies as the primary format through which the enterprise is studied, has led scholars to arrive at divergent interpretations of the Third Crusade and its - SPENCER 9 of 14 central protagonists: to consider the Treaty of Jaffa a triumph, failure or stalemate; to amplify or downplay Richard's successes; to determine (in a somewhat binary fashion) whether he was a ‘good’ or ‘bad’ crusader; to promote Philip's contribution to the siege of Acre or revile him for returning prematurely; and to view Frederick's death as the fulfilment of a masterplan or a catastrophe which masked his organisational achievement. There was no outright winner of the Third Crusade, and much depends on how we measure success: for example, whether we examine the enterprise's immediate outcomes in relation to the goals laid out in Audita tremendi and other material for the expedition's preaching; whether the recovery of Jerusalem and the True Cross are considered the sole objectives, with all other gains sitting outside the ‘official’ crusade; whether we compare the extent of the Muslims' and Christians' territorial holdings in the Latin East before and after the crusade; or whether the long‐term consequences of events like the conquest of Cyprus and capture of Acre are prioritised. Fortunately, the field has both expanded and diversified considerably during the 20th and 21st centuries, as attested by the shift away from the traditional Richard versus Saladin narrative, the growth of scholarship addressing underexplored events and themes, as well as the interrogation of source material outside the traditional canon. Under these conditions, it is hoped, an authoritative general history of the Third Crusade can finally be written. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This research was made possible by the award of a Leverhulme Trust Early Career Fellowship at King's College London, for which I am very grateful. I must also express my gratitude to the journal's staff and section editor, David Bachrach, for their patience and understanding as I endeavoured to complete this article amid COVID‐19 restrictions, and to Andrew Buck for his valuable insights on a draft. ORCID Stephen J. Spencer https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6581-7415 REFERENCES Ailes, M. (2004). Heroes of war: Ambroise’s heroes of the Third Crusade. In C. Saunders, F. Le Saux, & N. Thomas (Eds.), Writing war: Medieval literary responses to warfare (pp. 29–48). Boydell. Ailes, M. (2008). Ambroise’s Estoire de la guerre sainte and the development of a genre. Reading Medieval Studies, 34, 1–19. Ailes, M., & Barber, M. (Ed. & Trans.). (2003). The history of the holy war: Ambroise’s Estoire de la guerre sainte (Vols. 1–2). Boydell. Appleby, J. T. (1965). England without Richard, 1189–1199. G. Bell & Sons. Asbridge, T. (2010). The crusades: The war for the Holy Land. Simon & Schuster. Asbridge, T. (2013). Talking to the enemy: The role and purpose of negotiations between Saladin and Richard the Lionheart during the Third Crusade. Journal of Medieval History, 39(3), 275–296. Baldwin, J. W. (1986). The government of Philip Augustus: Foundations of French royal power in the Middle Ages. University of California Press. Barber, M. (2012). The crusader states. Yale University Press. Bargmann, L. (2010). Der Tod Friedrichs I. im Spiegel der Quellenüberlieferung. Concilium medii aevi, 13, 223–249. Bartlett, R. (Ed. & Trans.). (2018). Gerald of Wales, De principis instructione: Instruction for a ruler. Oxford University Press. Bennett, S. (2017). The battle of Arsuf/Arsur, a reappraisal of the charge of the Hospitallers. In J. Schenk & M. Carr (Eds.), The military orders: Vol. 6.1. Culture and conflict in the Mediterranean world (pp. 44–53). Routledge. Bennett, S. (2018). Faith and authority: Guy de Lusignan at the battle of Acre (4th October 1189). In G. Theotokis & A. Yildiz (Eds.), A military history of the Mediterranean Sea: Aspects of war, diplomacy, and military elites (pp. 220–234). Brill. Bennett, S. (2021). Elite participation in the Third Crusade. Boydell. Bennewitz, I., & van Eickels, K. (Eds.). (2018). Richard Löwenherz, ein europäischer Herrscher im Zeitalter der Konfrontation von Christentum und Islam. Mittelalterliche Wahrnehmung und moderne Rezeption. University of Bamberg Press. Berg, D. (2007). Richard Löwenherz. Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft. Birkett, H. (2018). News in the Middle Ages: News, communications, and the launch of the Third Crusade in 1187–1188. Viator, 49(3), 23–61. Bradbury, J. (1998). Philip Augustus, king of France, 1180–1223. Longman. Brand, C. M. (1962). The Byzantines and Saladin, 1185–1192: Opponents of the Third Crusade. Speculum, 37(2), 167–181. 10 of 14 - SPENCER Brewer, K., & Kane, J. H. (Ed. & Trans.). (2019). The conquest of the Holy Land by Ṣalāḥ al‐Dīn: A critical edition and translation of the anonymous Libellus de expugnatione terrae sanctae per Saladinum. Routledge. Bronstein, J. (2019). Hattin y Alarcos: Un análisis comparativo de la respuesta institucional de las órdenes militares a graves crisis en el este latino y la península ibérica. Hispania, 79(261), 41–68. Broughton, B. B. (1966). The legends of king Richard I Coeur de Lion: A study of sources and variations to the year 1600. Mouton. Brundage, J. A. (1963). The crusade of Richard I: Two canonical quaestiones. Speculum, 38(3), 443–452. Brundage, J. A. (1974). Richard Lion Heart. Charles Scribner’s Sons. Bull, M. (2018). Eyewitness and crusade narrative: Perception and narration in accounts of the Second, Third and Fourth Crusades. Boydell. Carpentier, É., Pon, G., & Chauvin, Y. (Ed. & Trans.). (2006). Rigord, Histoire de Philippe Auguste. CNRS Éditions. Cartellieri, A. (1906). Philipp II. August, König von Frankreich: Vol. 2. Der Kreuzzug (1187–1191). Dyksche Buchhandlung. Cassidy‐Welch, M. (2017). Before trauma: The crusades, medieval memory and violence. Continuum, 31(5), 619–627. Castellani, M.‐M. (2019). Chanter la gloire de Philippe Auguste dans la Philippide de Guillaume le Breton. In S. Douchet, M.‐P. Halary, S. Lefèvre, P. Moran, & J.‐R. Valette (Eds.), De la pensée de l’histoire au jeu littéraire. Études médiévales en l’honneur de Dominique Boutet (pp. 161–169). Honoré Champion. Chism, C. (2019). Saladin and Richard I. In A. Bale (Ed.), The Cambridge companion to the literature of the crusades (pp. 167–183). Cambridge University Press. Chroust, A. (Ed.). (1928). Quellen zur Geschichte des Kreuzzuges Kaiser Friedrichs I. Monumenta Germaniae Historica: Scriptores rerum Germanicarum. Nova series 5. Weidmannsche Buchhandlung. Cole, P. J. (1991). The preaching of the crusades to the Holy Land, 1095–1270. Medieval Academy of America. Cole, P. J. (1993). Christian perceptions of the battle of Hattin (583/1187). Al‐Masāq, 6(1), 9–39. Corner, D. (1983). The Gesta regis Henrici secundi and Chronica of Roger, parson of Howden. Bulletin of the Institute of Historical Research, 56(134), 126–144. Cotts, J. D. (2017). The exegesis of violence in the crusade writings of Ralph Niger and Peter of Blois. In E. Lapina & N. Morton (Eds.), The uses of the bible in crusader sources (pp. 273–294). Brill. Cotts, J. D. (2018). Earthly kings, heavenly Jerusalem: Ralph Niger’s political exegesis and the Third Crusade. Haskins Society Journal, 30, 159–176. Croizy‐Naquet, C. (1998). Les figures du jongleur dans l’Estoire de la guerre sainte. Le Moyen Âge, 104(2), 230–256. Croizy‐Naquet, C. (2001). Deux représentations de la troisième croisade. L’Estoire de la guerre sainte et la Chronique d’Ernoul et de Bernard le Trésorier. Cahiers de civilisation médiévale, 44(176), 313–327. Croizy‐Naquet, C. (2011). Légende ou histoire? Les assassins dans l’Estoire de guerre sainte d’Ambroise et dans la Chronique d’Ernoul et de Bernard le Trésorier. Le Moyen Âge, 117(2), 237–257. Croizy‐Naquet, C. (Ed. & Trans.). (2014a). L’Estoire de la guerre sainte. Honoré Champion. Croizy‐Naquet, C. (2014b). La représentation de Richard Coeur de Lion dans l’Estoire de la guerre sainte. Des éléments d’hagiographie? In F. Laurent, L. Mathey‐Maille, & M. Szkilnik (Eds.), Des saints et des rois. L’hagiographie au service de l’histoire (pp. 175–190). Honoré Champion. Croizy‐Naquet, C. (2019). Rigord, Philippe Auguste et la croisade. In S. Douchet, M.‐P. Halary, S. Lefèvre, P. Moran, & J.‐R. Valette (Eds.), De la pensée de l’histoire au jeu littéraire. Études médiévales en l’honneur de Dominique Boutet (pp. 148–160). Honoré Champion. Cushing, D. (Ed. & Trans.). (2013). A German Third Crusader’s chronicle of his voyage and the siege of Almohad Silves, 1189 AD/ Muwahid Xelb, 585 AH: De itinere navali. Antimony Media. Damian‐Grint, P. (1999). The new historians of the twelfth‐century renaissance: Inventing vernacular authority. Boydell. David, C. W. (Ed.). (1939). Narratio de itinere navali peregrinorum Hierosolymam tendentium et Silviam capientium, A.D. 1189. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society. 81(5), 591–676. Delaborde, H. F. (Ed.). (1885). Oeuvres de Rigord et de Guillaume le Breton, historiens de Philippe‐Auguste: Vol. 2. Philippide de Guillaume le Breton. Librairie Renouard. Edbury, P. (1991). The kingdom of Cyprus and the crusades, 1191–1374. Cambridge University Press. Edbury, P. (1996a). The conquest of Jerusalem and the Third Crusade: Sources in translation. Ashgate. Edbury, P. (1996b). Preaching the crusade in Wales. In A. Haverkamp & H. Vollrath (Eds.), England and Germany in the High Middle Ages (pp. 221–233). Oxford University Press. Edbury, P. (1997). The Lyon Eracles and the Old French continuations of William of Tyre. In B. Z. Kedar, J. Riley‐Smith, & R. Hiestand (Eds.), Montjoie: Studies in crusade history in honour of Hans Eberhard Mayer (pp. 139–153). Ashgate. Edbury, P. (2010). New perspectives on the Old French continuations of William of Tyre. Crusades, 9, 107–113. Edbury, P. (2018). Ernoul, Eracles, and the collapse of the kingdom of Jerusalem. In L. K. Morreale & N. L. Paul (Eds.), The French of Outremer: Communities and communications in the crusading Mediterranean (pp. 44–67). Fordham University Press. SPENCER - 11 of 14 Edbury, P. (2019). The Lyon Eracles revisited. In S. Menache, B. Z. Kedar, & M. Balard (Eds.), Crusading and trading between West and East: Studies in honour of David Jacoby (pp. 40–53). Routledge. Eddé, A.‐M. (2011). Saladin. J. M. Todd (Trans). Harvard University Press. Edwards, J. G. (1933). The Itinerarium regis Ricardi and the Estoire de la guerre sainte. In J. G. Edwards, V. H. Galbraith, & E. F. Jacob (Eds.), Historical essays in honour of James Tait (pp. 59–77). Printed for the subscribers. Ehrenkreutz, A. S. (1972). Saladin. State University of New York Press. Ehrlich, M. (2007). The battle of Hattin: A chronicle of a defeat foretold? Journal of Medieval Military History, 5, 16–32. Ehrlich, M. (2014). The battle of Arsur: A short‐lived victory. Journal of Medieval Military History, 12, 109–118. Eickhoff, E. (1977). Friedrich Barbarossa im Orient. Kreuzzug und Tod Friedrichs I. Ernst Wasmuth. Falk, S., & Placanica, A. (Ed. & Trans.). (2006). Der ‘Rithmus de expeditione Ierosolimitana’ des sogenannten Haymarus Monachus Florentinus. Ein Augenzeugenbericht über die Belagerung Akkons (1189–1191) während des dritten Kreuzzugs. SISMEL. Fischer, R.‐T. (2006). Richard I. Löwenherz 1157–1199. Mythos und Realität. Böhlau. Flori, J. (2006). Richard the Lionheart: King and knight. J. Birrell (Trans.). Edinburgh University Press. Flori, J. (2007). Philippe Auguste. La naissance de l’État monarchique. Tallandier. France, J. (2011). Warfare in the Mediterranean region in the age of the crusades, 1095–1291: A clash of contrasts. In C. Kostick (Ed.), The crusades and the Near East: Cultural histories (pp. 9–26). Routledge. France, J. (2015). Hattin. Oxford University Press. Franke, D. P. (2016). Crusade, empire and the process of war in Staufen Germany, 1180–1220. In A. J. Boas (Ed.), The crusader world (pp. 128–143). Routledge. Freed, J. B. (2016). Frederick Barbarossa: The prince and the myth. Yale University Press. Friedman, Y. (2002). Encounter between enemies: Captivity and ransom in the Latin kingdom of Jerusalem. Brill. Fuller, T. (1639). The historie of the holy warre. T. Buck. Gaggero, M. (2018). Western eyes on the Latin East: Chronique d’Ernoul et de Bernard le Trésorier and Robert of Clari’s Conquête de Constantinople. In L. K. Morreale & N. L. Paul (Eds.), The French of Outremer: Communities and communications in the crusading Mediterranean (pp. 86–109). Fordham University Press. Gaggero, M. (2019). La Chronique d’Ernoul et de Bernard le Trésorier, l’Eracles et la narration de la croisade. Cahiers de recherches médiévales et humanistes, 37, 53–74. Gibb, H. A. R. (1950). The Arabic sources for the life of Saladin. Speculum, 25(1), 58–72. Gibb, H. A. R. (1952). The achievement of Saladin. Bulletin of the John Rylands Library, 35(1), 44–60. Gibb, H. A. R. (1973). The life of Saladin. Clarendon Press. Gillingham, J. (1982). Roger of Howden on crusade. In D. O. Morgan (Ed.), Medieval historical writing in the Christian and Islamic worlds (pp. 60–75). School of Oriental and African Studies. Gillingham, J. (1989). Richard the Lionheart (2nd ed.). Weidenfeld & Nicolson. Gillingham, J. (1994). Richard Coeur de Lion: Kingship, chivalry and war in the twelfth century. Hambledon Press. Gillingham, J. (1999). Richard I. Yale University Press. Gillingham, J. (2000). Royal newsletters, forgeries and English historians: Some links between court and history in the reign of Richard I. In M. Aurell (Ed.), La cour Plantagenêt (1154–1204). Actes du colloque tenu à Thouars du 30 avril au 2 mai 1999 (pp. 171–186). Université de Poitiers. Gillingham, J. (2006). Writing the biography of Roger of Howden, king’s clerk and chronicler. In D. Bates, J. Crick, & S. Hamilton (Eds.), Writing medieval biography 750–1250: Essays in honour of Professor Frank Barlow (pp. 207–220). Boydell. Görich, K. (2001). Die Ehre Friedrich Barbarossas. Kommunikation, Konflikt und politisches Handeln im 12. Jahrhundert. Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft. Görich, K. (2006). Die ‘Ehre Des Reichs’ (honor imperii). Überlegungen zi einem Forschungsproblem. In J. Laudage & Y. Leiverkus (Eds.), Rittertum und höfische Kultur der Stauferzeit (pp. 36–74). Böhlau. Görich, K. (2011). Friedrich Barbarossa. Eine biographie. C. H. Beck. Grousset, R. (1936). Histoire des croisades et du royaume franc de Jérusalem: Vol. 3. La monarchie musulmane et l’anarchie franque. Librairie Plon. Hanley, C. (2001). Reading the past through the present: Ambroise, the minstrel of Reims and Jordan Fantosme. Mediaevalia, 20, 265–271. Herde, P. (1966). Die Kämpfe bei den Hörnern von Hittin und der Untergang des Kreuzritterheers (3. und 4. Juli 1187). Eine historisch‐topographische Untersuchung. Römische Quartalschrift für christliche Altertumskunde und Kirchengeschichte, 61, 1–50. Hiestand, R. (1991). Die Kriegskasse des Kaisers? Gedanken zum ‘Barbarossa‐Fund’ aus historischer Sicht. Vierteljahrschrift für Sozial‐ und Wirtschaftsgeschichte, 78, 190–197. Hiestand, R. (1992). ‘Precipua tocius christianismi columpna’. Barbarossa und der Kreuzzug. In A. Haverkamp (Ed.), Friedrich Barbarossa. Handlungsspielräume und Wirkungsweisen des staufischen Kaisers (pp. 51–108). Thorbecke. 12 of 14 - SPENCER Hiestand, R. (2007). Barbarossas letztes Schreiben vom Kreuzzug. In T. Kölzer, F.‐A. Bornschlegel, C. Friedl, & G. Vogeler (Eds.), De litteris, manuscriptis, inscriptionibus … Festschrift zum 65. Geburstag von Walter Koch (pp. 561–576). Böhlau. Hillenbrand, C. (1999). The crusades: Islamic perspectives. Edinburgh University Press. Hillenbrand, C. (2019). Saladin's ‘spin doctors’. Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, 29, 65–77. Hosler, J. D. (2018a). Clausewitz’s wounded lion: A fighting retreat at the siege of Acre, November 1190. In J. France (Ed.), Acre and its falls: Studies in the history of a crusader city (pp. 30–48). Brill. Hosler, J. D. (2018b). The siege of Acre (1189–1191) in the historiographical tradition. History Compass, 16(5), 1–11. Hosler, J. D. (2018c). The siege of Acre, 1189–1191: Saladin, Richard the Lionheart, and the battle that decided the Third Crusade. Yale. Hosler, J. D. (2020). Knightly ideals at the siege of Acre, 1189–1191. In D. Crouch & J. Deploige (Eds.), Knighthood and society in the High Middle Ages (pp. 145–166). Leuven University Press. Hurlock, K. (2011). Wales and the crusades, c.1095–1291. University of Wales Press. Huygens, R. B. C. (Ed.). (2002). Petri Blesensis tractatus duo. Brepols. Jensen, J. M. (2018). Martyrs for the faith: Denmark, the Third Crusade and the fall of Acre in 1191. In J. France (Ed.), Acre and its falls: Studies in the history of a crusader city (pp. 49–68). Brill. Johnson, E. N. (1969). The crusades of Frederick Barbarossa and Henry VI. In K. M. Setton (Gen. Ed.), R. L. Wolff, & H. W. Hazard (Eds.), A history of the crusades: Vol. 2. The later crusades, 1189–1311 (2nd ed., pp. 87–122). University of Wisconsin Press. Jubb, M. (2000). The legend of Saladin in western literature and historiography. Edwin Mellen Press. Kamenzin, M. (2020). Die Tode der römisch‐deutschen Könige und Kaiser (1150–1349). Thorbecke. Kane, J. H. (2016). Wolf’s hair, exposed digits, and Muslim holy men: The Libellus de expugnatione terrae sanctae per Saladinum and the Conte of Ernoul. Viator, 47(2), 95–112. Kane, J. H. (2018). Between parson and poet: A re‐examination of the Latin continuation of William of Tyre. Journal of Medieval History, 44(1), 56–82. Kedar, B. Z. (1992). The battle of Hattin revisited. In B. Z. Kedar (Ed.), The horns of Hattin (pp. 190–207). Yad Izhak Ben Zvi Institute. Kedar, B. Z. (2015). King Richard’s plan for the battle of Arsūf/Arsur, 1191. In G. I. Halford (Ed.), The medieval way of war: Studies in medieval military history in honor of Bernard S. Bachrach (pp. 117–132). Ashgate. Kessler, U. (1995). Richard I Löwenherz. König, Kreuzritter, Abenteurer. Styria. Köhler, M. A. (2013). Alliances and treaties between Frankish and Muslim rulers in the Middle East: Cross‐cultural diplomacy in the period of the crusades. P. M. Holt (Trans.) & K. Hirshler (Rev.). Brill. Laudage, J. (2009). Friedrich Barbarossa (1152–1190). Eine Biografie. L. Hageneier & M. Schrör (Eds.). Friedrich Pustet. Le livre des deux jardins. Histoire des deux régnes, celui de Nour Ed‐Dîn et celui de Salah Ed‐Dîn. (1898–1906). In Recueil des historiens des croisades. Historiens orientaux (Vols. 4–5). Imprimerie Nationale. Loud, G. A. (Trans.). (2010). The crusade of Frederick Barbarossa: The history of the expedition of emperor Frederick and related texts. Ashgate. Loud, G. A. (Trans.). (2019). The chronicle of Arnold of Lübeck. Routledge. Lyons, M. C., & Jackson, D. E. P. (1982). Saladin: The politics of the holy war. Cambridge University Press. Mack, M. (2011). A Genoese perspective of the Third Crusade. Crusades, 10, 45–62. Markowski, M. (1992). Peter of Blois and the conception of the Third Crusade. In B. Z. Kedar (Ed.), The horns of Hattin (pp. 261–269). Yad Izhak Ben Zvi Institute. Markowski, M. (1997). Richard Lionheart: Bad king, bad crusader? Journal of Medieval History, 23(4), 351–365. Massé, H. (Trans.). (1972). ‘Imâd ad‐Dîn al‐Isfahânî (519–597/1125–1201), Conquête de la Syrie et de la Palestine par Saladin (al‐Fatḥ al‐qussî fî l‐fatḥ al‐Qudsî). Paul Geuthner. Mayer, H. E. (Ed.). (1962). Das Itinerarium peregrinorum. Eine zeitgenössische englische Chronik zum dritten Kreuzzug in ursprünglicher Gestalt. Anton Hiersemann. Mayer, H. E. (1977). Die Kanzlei Richards I. von England auf dem Dritten Kreuzzug. Mitteilungen des Instituts für Österreichische Geschichtsforschung, 85, 22–35. Mayer, H. E. (1982). Henry II of England and the Holy Land. English Historical Review, 97(385), 721–739. Mayer, H. E. (1988). The crusades (2nd ed.). J. Gillingham (Trans.). Oxford University Press. Michaeu, F. (2014). Ibn al‐Athīr. In A. Mallett (Ed.), Medieval Muslim historians and the Franks in the Levant (pp. 52–83). Brill. Minois, G. (2017). Richard Coeur de Lion. Perrin. Möhring, H. (1980). Saladin und der dritte Kreuzzug. Aiyubidische Strategie und Diplomatie im Vergleich vornehmlich der arabischen mit den lateinischen Quellen. Steiner. Möhring, H. (1982). Eine Chronik aus der Zeit des dritten Kreuzzugs. Das sogennante Itinerarium peregrinorum 1. Innsbrucker Historische Studien, 5, 149–167. Möhring, H. (1984). Saladins Politik des Heiligen Krieges. Der Islam, 61, 322–326. SPENCER - 13 of 14 Möhring, H. (2008). Saladin: The sultan and his times, 1138–1193. D. S. Bachrach (Trans.). John Hopkins University Press. Möhring, H. (2018). Joseph und seine Brüder im Mittelalter. Sultan Saladin und der Aufstieg des Aiyubidengeschlechtes. In I. Bennewitz & K. van Eickels (Eds.), Richard Löwenherz, ein europäischer Herrscher im Zeitalter der Konfrontation von Christentum und Islam. Mittelalterliche Wahrnehmung und moderne Rezeption (pp. 73–93). University of Bamberg Press. Munz, P. (1969). Frederick Barbarossa: A study in medieval politics. Eyre & Spottiswoode. Murray, A. V. (2007). Finance and logistics of the crusade of Frederick Barbarossa. In I. Shagrir, R. Ellenblum, & J. Riley‐Smith (Eds.), In laudem Hierosolymitani: Studies in crusades and medieval culture in honour of Benjamin Z. Kedar (pp. 357–368). Ashgate. Murray, A. V. (2014). The poet Friedrich von Hausen on the Third Crusade and the performance of Middle High German crusading songs. In S. John & N. Morton (Eds.), Crusading and warfare in the Middle Ages: Realities and representations. Essays in honour of John France (pp. 119–128). Ashgate. Naus, J. (2016). Constructing kingship: The Capetian monarchs of France and the early crusades. Manchester University Press. Nelson, J. L. (Ed.). (1992). Richard Coeur de Lion in history and myth. King’s College London. Neocleous, S. (2010). The Byzantines and Saladin: Opponents of the Third Crusade? Crusades, 9, 87–106. Neocleous, S. (2013). The Byzantines and Saladin: Some further arguments. Al‐Masāq, 25(2), 204–221. Nicholson, H. J. (Trans.). (1997a). Chronicle of the Third Crusade: The Itinerarium peregrinorum et gesta regis Ricardi. Ashgate. Nicholson, H. J. (1997b). Women on the Third Crusade. Journal of Medieval History, 23(4), 335–349. Nicholson, H. J. (2019). The construction of a primary source: The creation of Itinerarium peregrinorum 1. Cahiers de recherches médiévales et humanistes, 37, 143–165. Nicolle, D. (2006). The Third Crusade 1191: Richard the Lionheart, Saladin and the struggle for Jerusalem. Osprey Publishing. Nierman, J. H. (1975). Levantine peace following the Third Crusade: A new dimension in Frankish‐Muslim relations. The Muslim World, 65(2), 107–118. Norgate, K. (1910). The ‘Itinerarium peregrinorum’ and the ‘Song of Ambrose’. English Historical Review, 25(99), 523–547. Norgate, K. (1924). Richard the Lion Heart. Macmillan. Opll, F. (2009). Friedrich Barbarossa. Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft. Painter, S. (1969). The Third Crusade: Richard the Lionhearted and Philip Augustus. In K. M. Setton (Gen. Ed.), R. L. Wolff, & H. W. Hazard (Eds.), A history of the crusades: Vol. 2. The later crusades, 1189–1311 (2nd ed., pp. 45–85). University of Wisconsin Press. Paris, G. (Ed.). (1897). L’Estoire de la guerre sainte. Histoire en vers de la troisième croisade (1190–1192) par Ambroise. Imprimerie nationale. Paterson, L. (2018). Singing the crusades: French and Occitan lyric responses to the crusading movements, 1137–1336. D. S. Brewer. Phillips, J. (2015). The Third Crusade in context: Contradiction, curiosity and survival. Studies in Church History, 51, 92–114. Phillips, J. (2019). The life and legend of the sultan Saladin. Bodley Head. Power, D. (2014). The preparations of count John I of Sées for the Third Crusade. In S. John & N. Morton (Eds.), Crusading and warfare in the Middle Ages: Realities and representations. Essays in honour of John France (pp. 143–166). Ashgate. Pryor, J. H. (1992). The Eracles and William of Tyre: An interim report. In B. Z. Kedar (Ed.), The horns of Hattin (pp. 270–293). Yad Izhak Ben Zvi Institute. Pryor, J. H. (2015). A medieval siege of Troy: The fight to the death at Acre, 1189–1191 or the tears of Ṣalāḥ al‐Dīn. In G. I. Halford (Ed.), The medieval way of war: Studies in medieval military history in honor of Bernard S. Bachrach (pp. 97–115). Ashgate. Reston, Jr., J. (2001). Warriors of God: Richard the Lionheart and Saladin in the Third Crusade. Doubleday. Richard, J. (1982). Philippe Auguste, la croisade et le royaume. In R.‐H. Bautier (Ed.), La France de Philippe Auguste. Le temps des mutations (pp. 411–424). CNRS. Richard, J. (1999). The crusades, c.1071–c.1291. J. Birrell (Trans.). Cambridge University Press. Richards, D. S. (1980). A consideration of two sources for the life of Saladin. Journal of Semitic Studies, 25(1), 46–65. Richards, D. S. (1993). Imad al‐Din al‐Isfahani: Administrator, littérateur and historian. In M. Shatzmiller (Ed.), Crusaders and Muslims in twelfth‐century Syria (pp. 133–146). Brill. Richards, D. S. (Trans.). (2002). The rare and excellent history of Saladin or al‐Nawādir al‐Sulṭāniyya wa’l‐Maḥāsin al‐Yūsufiyya by Bahā’ al‐Dīn Ibn Shaddād. Ashgate. Richards, D. S. (Trans.). (2007). The chronicle of Ibn al‐Athir for the crusading period from al‐Kamil fi’l‐Ta’rikh, Part 2: The years 541–589/1146–1193: The age of Nur al‐Din and Saladin. Ashgate. Richter‐Bernburg, L. (2014). ‘Imād al‐Dīn al‐Iṣfahānī. In A. Mallett (Ed.), Medieval Muslim historians and the Franks in the Levant (pp. 29–51). Brill. Rieger, A. (1998). Relations interculturelles entre troubadours, trouvères et Minnesänger au temps des croisades. In A. Touber (Ed.), Le rayonnement des troubadours. Actes du colloque de l’AIEO, Association Internationale d’Etudes Occitanes, Amsterdam, 16–18 Octobre 1995 (pp. 201–225). Rodopi. Riley‐Smith, J. (1987). The crusades: A short history. Athlone. Round, J. H. (1916). The Saladin tithe. English Historical Review, 31(123), 447–450. 14 of 14 - SPENCER Salloch, M. (Ed.). (1934). Die lateinische Fortsetzung Wilhelms von Tyrus. H. Eichblatt. Sayers, J. (1985). English charters from the Third Crusade. In D. Greenway, C. Holdsworth, & J. Sayers (Eds.), Tradition and change: Essays in honour of Marjorie Chibnall (pp. 195–213). Cambridge University Press. Schein, S. (2005). Gateway to the heavenly city: Crusader Jerusalem and the Catholic West (1099–1187). Ashgate. Schmugge, L. (Ed.). (1977). Radulfus Niger, De re militari et triplici via peregrinationis Ierosolimitane (1187/88). Walter de Gruyter. Schubert, A. (Ed.). (2017). Richard Löwenherz. König, Ritter, Gefangener. Schnell & Steiner. Skovgaard‐Petersen, K. (2001). A journey to the Promised Land: Crusading theology in the Historia de profectione Danorum in Hierosolymam (c.1200). Museum Tusculanum Press. Smail, R. C. (1995). Crusading warfare, 1097–1193 (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press. Smith, T. W. (2018). Audita tremendi and the call for the Third Crusade reconsidered, 1187–1188. Viator, 49(3), 63–101. Southern, R. (1985). Peter of Blois and the Third Crusade. In H. Mayr‐Harting & R. I. Moore (Eds.), Studies in medieval history presented to R. H. C. Davis (pp. 207–218). The Hamilton Press. Spacey, B. C. (2019). Martyrdom as masculinity in the Itinerarium peregrinorum et gesta regis Ricardi. In N. R. Hodgson, K. J. Lewis, & M. M. Mesley (Eds.), Crusading and masculinities (pp. 222–236). Routledge. Spencer, S. J. (2017). ‘Like a raging lion’: Richard the Lionheart's anger during the Third Crusade in medieval and modern historiography. English Historical Review, 132(556), 495–532. Staunton, M. (2017). The historians of Angevin England. Oxford University Press. Stenton, D. M. (1953). Roger of Howden and Benedict. English Historical Review, 68(269), 574–582. Stubbs, W. (Ed.). (1864). Chronicles and memorials of the reign of Richard I: Itinerarium peregrinorum et gesta regis Ricardi (Vol. 1). Longman. Stubbs, W. (Ed.). (1867). Gesta regis Henrici secundi Benedicti abbatis: The chronicle of the reigns of Henry II and Richard I AD 1169–1192 (Vols. 1–2). Longman. Stubbs, W. (Ed.). (1868–1871). Chronica magistri Rogeri de Houedene (Vols. 1–4). Longman. Stumpf, G. (1991). Der Kreuzzug Kaiser Barbarossas. Münzschätze seiner Zeit. Staatliche Münzsammlung. Turner, R. V., & Heiser, R. R. (2000). The reign of Richard Lionheart: Ruler of the Angevin empire, 1189–1199. Pearson. Tyerman, C. (1988). England and the crusades, 1095–1588. University of Chicago Press. Tyerman, C. (1998). The invention of the crusades. Macmillan. Tyerman, C. (2006). God’s war: A new history of the crusades. Allen Lane. Tyerman, C. (2015). How to plan a crusade: Reason and religious war in the High Middle Ages. Allen Lane. Vielliard, F. (2005). L’Utilisation de l’Itinerarium peregrinorum par L’Estoire de la guerre sainte. Traduction et adaptation. In D. Jacquart, D. James‐Raoul, & O. Soutet (Eds.), Par les mots et par les textes … Mélanges de langue, de littérature et d'histoire des sciences médiévales offerts à Claude Thomasset (pp. 807–818). Presses de l’Université Paris‐Sorbonne. Wagner, T. G., & Mitchell, P. D. (2011). The illnesses of king Richard and king Philippe on the Third Crusade: An understanding of arnaldia and leonardie. Crusades, 10, 23–44. AUTHOR BIOGRAPHY Stephen J. Spencer is a Leverhulme Early Career Fellow at King's College London, where he is working on his postdoctoral project ‘Information Dissemination and Contested Memory: The Third Crusade, 1187–1300’. He is the author of Emotions in a Crusading Context, 1095–1291 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2019) and several articles on the Latin and Old French narratives of the crusades, including a 2017 study of medieval and modern representations of Richard the Lionheart's anger during the Third Crusade, published in The English Historical Review. How to cite this article: Spencer, S. J. (2021). The Third Crusade in historiographical perspective. History Compass, 19(7), e12662. https://doi.org/10.1111/hic3.12662